Comments on 'Misinterpreting the History of Macroeconomic Thought'TypePad2013-01-25T03:10:21ZMark Thomahttp://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/tag:typepad.com,2003:http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/01/misinterpreting-the-history-of-macroeconomic-thought/comments/atom.xml/Rafa commented on ''Misinterpreting the History of Macroeconomic Thought''tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b33869e2017d40cc7526970c2013-02-05T21:07:45Z2013-02-05T21:07:45ZRafahttp://www.la-economia.netThe evolutionary phases are apparent in time-series data on labor force participation. The revolutionary phase is discernible using time-series evidence...<p>The evolutionary phases are apparent in time-series data on labor force participation. The revolutionary phase is discernible using time-series evidence on women&#39;s more predictable attachment to the workplace, greater identity with career, and better ability to make joint decisions with their spouses. Each of these series has a sharp break or inflection point signifying social and economic change. ... </p>Jan commented on ''Misinterpreting the History of Macroeconomic Thought''tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b33869e2017c36553f12970b2013-01-28T10:47:43Z2013-01-28T10:47:43ZJanWhy not a middle ground, both ideology and "intellectual style." Wren-Lewis seems to think the basic tension is between deductivists...<p>Why not a middle ground, both ideology and &quot;intellectual style.&quot; Wren-Lewis seems to think the basic tension is between deductivists (and a consistency theory of truth) and inductivists (and a correspondence theory), while PRJ thinks the tension is between capitalist plutocrats and egalitarians/democrats. But shouldn&#39;t we expect these two tensions to be correlated? People who want above all a pretty world (deductivism and consistency)will believe the existing world is pretty and vice versa. But people who want above all to grasp reality (correspondence)will be intellectually free to pursue greater aggregate happiness and social justice. </p>
<p>In short, mathematical economics tends to be reactionary economics. Experimental economics tends to be humanitarian economics.</p>PJR commented on ''Misinterpreting the History of Macroeconomic Thought''tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b33869e2017d4073ee0a970c2013-01-26T03:09:24Z2013-01-26T03:09:24ZPJRMaybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that politics and ideology have been important to the discipline. Keynesian economics...<p>Maybe I&#39;m wrong, but it seems to me that politics and ideology have been important to the discipline. Keynesian economics lost at the ballot box starting in 1980--this had little to do with the validity and merits of economists&#39; theories and models. Economists who favored theories that were consistent with greater equality in economic growth lost influence, and those who favored theories consistent with greater inequality (&quot;freedom&quot;) in economic growth gained influence, as a consequence of political changes. Economists&#39; work almost certainly was influenced by personal political/ideological values, and then probably also by discernible changes in paths to academic and political influence. (Perhaps related, the concept of &quot;microfoundations&quot; would have appealed to business leaders not only politically/ideologically but also by virtue of the implied deference to microeconomics, which they found useful as a tool serving management.) </p>Oupoot commented on ''Misinterpreting the History of Macroeconomic Thought''tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b33869e2017ee7e27bc6970d2013-01-25T11:02:17Z2013-01-25T11:02:17ZOupootA sort of Creative Destruction within macro-economics theory in understanding the real world? Another key aspect that led to changes...<p>A sort of Creative Destruction within macro-economics theory in understanding the real world? </p>
<p>Another key aspect that led to changes is technological change, allowing more sophisticated models to develop. Today&#39;s DGSE models would never have been possible even in the 1990s given the technology at the time.</p>